141–150 of 195 posts
> When servers are rebooted or provisioned for the first time, we can be safe in the knowledge that we get a freshly built kernel
Any info what’s the period of time doing so? Do you provision them every day, week? An hour maybe? The more the period the less chance of some attack vectors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't sure what a decentralized VPN would look like, so I searched and found https://surfshark.com/blog/decentralized-vpn . Obvious bias coming from a VPN provider, but if they are stating the technology correctly, then I think it's important to determine if this is correct: > A decentralized VPN is a distributed VPN service where volunteers supply your VPN servers instead of a single company – but paid by crypto.…
No that isn't accurate. You have a network of VPN point providers. As you communicate, data can be sent through any series of points. Data is encrypted end-to-end, and the addresses for the point providers are also encrypted so that each point can only decrypt and see the next point to forward data to. So each point knows where data last came from, and where they are sending it. But they don't know: 1. Which step of…
"They" will just spray the machines with liquid nitrogen, pull them out of the rack, put the DRAM in a thermos w/ LN2 and read the data at their leisure. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8388826
You can enable SME in the BIOS on all AMD-based business laptops and AMD EPYC servers.
1. https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/epyc-busine...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how they all act as if the majority of the websites their users are going to aren't HTTPS and they act like their main benefits are filling in the gaps that HTTPS actually fills in. I hear most of them saying "Don't want your ISP spying on where you're browsing? Use a VPN." Which HTTPS does not cover.
With HTTPS, ISPs can see _where_ you are browsing, but not _what_ you are browsing. Of course them seeing the top level domain still violates certain aspects of privacy, personally I’d prefer ISPs couldn’t even see that. But it’s not like they are peering into the actual content of what you are browsing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how they all act as if the majority of the websites their users are going to aren't HTTPS and they act like their main benefits are filling in the gaps that HTTPS actually fills in. I hear most of them saying "Don't want your ISP spying on where you're browsing? Use a VPN." Which HTTPS does not cover.
Providers, at least in Europe, are much more strongly regulated than “vpN ProVidErs” re: privacy and everything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disks don’t always have a readonly switch these days, though I do still miss the physical notch on floppy disks, and no third-party auditing could exist for proving that switch to be set correctly.
No third-party auditing could exist that proves you only have RAM in the system and don't have a secret disk in there with a magnetic reed switch in-line with the SATA power cable such that without sticking a magnet on the case the disk doesn't show up. Or that you aren't booting off a USB drive that you plug in only after the auditors leave. Third-party audits are a scam to begin with and don't prove anything.
Third-party audits prove something. They don't prove everything.
Nice work! But, if anything should be a decentralized anonymous crypto-paid service, it should be a VPN network. Centralized VPNs are still a single point of failure privacy risk. We have to trust they don't share our identity/account info and activity. I am surprised dVPNs are not THE first rationale given for crypto. I.e. since separately and together they (ideally) have a clear comparative advantage over other alt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how they all act as if the majority of the websites their users are going to aren't HTTPS and they act like their main benefits are filling in the gaps that HTTPS actually fills in. I hear most of them saying "Don't want your ISP spying on where you're browsing? Use a VPN." Which HTTPS does not cover.
Providers, at least in Europe, are much more strongly regulated than “vpN ProVidErs” re: privacy and everything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There should probably be case law before anyone actually believes in warrant canaries. 'If it's illegal to advertise that you've received a court order of some kind, it's illegal to intentionally and knowingly take any action that has the effect of advertising the receipt of that order. A judge can't force you to do anything, but every lawyer I've spoken to has indicated that having a "canary" you remove or choose no…
What happens when someone asks you whether you have received a court order of some kind? Are you compelled by court to lie about it?
I've always felt that the warrant canary is a nerd's gotcha designed to get out of a sketchy legal process (NSLs) and that judges would be very unsympathetic. But IANAL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they know which machine to hit. How do you do customer service without such a basic function?
Mullvad gives you the option to connect to multiple servers. They offer wireguard configs for every endpoint. How does law enforcement know which server the client plans to connect to? There is no metering either, just a flat monthly rate so nothing to track there either.